[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Policy wrt Important (was Re: dc and bc in Important?)

In your email to me, Bill Mitchell, you wrote:
> On 25 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> > By the current definition of Important:
> >[...]
> >    sendmail
> >  * dpkg-dev should not be there since no experienced user of another
> >    Unix would expect it
> >  * lilo should not be there because lilo is not part of UNIX
> I read it differently:
>   ``Important programs, including those which one would expect to find
>   on any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an experienced
>   Unix person who found it missing would go `What the F*!@<+ is going
>   on, where is foo', it should be in important. [...]
> I read an implication of "including, but not limited to, ..."
> into that.
> However, I could buy some of your arguments that other
> packages (providing cc, lpr, etc.) not currently considered
> Important should be considered Important by this rule because
> they pass the Unix person expectation test.

Anyone that works iwth Slowaris 2.5 or so will tell you that cc is
*not* part of the OS anymore..


 (work) sailer@bnl.gov / (home) tps@buoy.com - http://www.buoy.com/~tps
		 "The squeaky wheel gets the grease,
  but gets changed at the next opportunity if it squeaks habitually."
** Disclaimer: My views/comments/beliefs, as strange as they are, are my own.**

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: